It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Apollo 15 images on approach- giving the conspiracy theory a chance

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I want to strengthen my point on this conspiracy. Mods, please do not delete this thread as my main point would be lost amongst the name calling of the other thread.

I have put together 4 images from Apollo 15's approach and landing. If I don't know what I'm talking about as many said in the last thread, then it should be very easy to point out the various distances as seen from the lunar module's camera. The distances are 3,000ft, 500ft, 100ft and from the actual surface-



In the last thread it was pointed out that as there is no atmosphere on the moon, thus it would not be possible to judge distance as it would be on earth.

However, the following image from the moon's surface shows very fine detail, you can see footprints etc-



As far as I am concerned, the landing footage is simply of a very good model- yet as the camera gets closer to the model for the intended effect of 'landing', it is obvious it is just a make up set- the scales are completely off.

There is actually a period from the Apollo 15 landing footage where a rock that is seen from approx 200 feet up remains in view until the lunar module touches down and it doesn't change in size!


edit on 5-9-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
It would be helpful if all the pics were of the same region. Who's to say if there are smaller rocks/craters where they landed.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
It would be helpful if all the pics were of the same region. Who's to say if there are smaller rocks/craters where they landed.


Why would it matter?

If you are far away from a big rock, you still cannot see the same detail as you would being close to a small rock. Surely that is obvious?

Look at your hand, and see the incredible detail.

Look out your window at a building that is thousands of times bigger than your hand, you would not be able to see the same detail as being CLOSE to something.

We've got to use logic people.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Wait... you're trying to prove the moon landing was fake and you're using an image from the surface of the moon as evidence?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Anyone ever use Google Moon?

It's part of Google Earth. It's free. We could compare two of these images at different altitudes.

In the other thread, I suggested doing this with the fake moon set in the desert that NASA built for mockups, but the moon itself would be better.

I do see a slight difference in the above pics but not enough detail to prove we went there - or not. I have always felt the moon landing video looked very off. I personally don't believe Man went to the moon. Or that is to say, I don't believe it can be proven that we did go. Everything they say they did or took from the Moon can be faked. All we have is our corrupt governments word - you people still want to believe anything that comes out of this governments month? Astounding.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
In your last pic.. the one from the surface.. how far from the ground is the camera? Do we know? Exactly? How high up is the camera on the lander?.. perhaps 10, feet? Less? More?

Think about that.

Now compare that image to the rocks you see in the foreground and background in the picture with the astronaut and the flag - does it seem plausible to you that these images are similar? They are Not even close to being similar.

This tells me the Op is on to something.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by superman2012
It would be helpful if all the pics were of the same region. Who's to say if there are smaller rocks/craters where they landed.


Why would it matter?

If you are far away from a big rock, you still cannot see the same detail as you would being close to a small rock. Surely that is obvious?

Look at your hand, and see the incredible detail.

Look out your window at a building that is thousands of times bigger than your hand, you would not be able to see the same detail as being CLOSE to something.

We've got to use logic people.


Yes, let's use some logic.

I look at my hand through a camera, I then pan a camera to the right and catch my son's hand, it is smaller it is not the same hand, but it is a different size. Does that mean it is closer or further from the camera? How can you tell? If you can't catch that analogy, I can draw it out for you.
Please show me how you can see detail on the moon video, and please show me that the camera that was there was able to catch such detail. Do you see what I mean? If the camera wasn't able to catch the detail that you want, how is this a good basis for argument?

Edit: Oh I see now! You guys are comparing two different cameras and wondering why one shows more detail than the other! Check out which cameras were used and where they were used. That might help you "logically" figure this out.
edit on 5-9-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Why complicate the matter?

- The SAME camera is used for each image. They are taken from a moon landing video.

- The notion that you see more detail when you are closer to something is what I am getting at here.

- From the 4 images, it is really difficult (in fact I would bet not one person can correctly guess all 4) to tell the difference- one of these is taken 3,000ft from the surface whilst one is taken on the actual surface!!!!!!!

Surely if it was real someone could point out the difference of 3,000ft?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

I do see a slight difference in the above pics but not enough detail to prove we went there - or not. I have always felt the moon landing video looked very off. I personally don't believe Man went to the moon. Or that is to say, I don't believe it can be proven that we did go. Everything they say they did or took from the Moon can be faked. All we have is our corrupt governments word - you people still want to believe anything that comes out of this governments month? Astounding.


From 4 images taken from the landing, should we be able to see the difference between the sufrace of the moon from 3,000ft and when on the surface?

Or should they look the same?


I agree with you by the way, just asking the obvious



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
In your last pic.. the one from the surface.. how far from the ground is the camera? Do we know? Exactly? How high up is the camera on the lander?.. perhaps 10, feet? Less? More?

Think about that.

Now compare that image to the rocks you see in the foreground and background in the picture with the astronaut and the flag - does it seem plausible to you that these images are similar? They are Not even close to being similar.

This tells me the Op is on to something.


I would agree they do not look similar, the picture with the astronaut shows fine detail, an almost sand like texture look. It looks nothing like the surface image from the landing- although you are yet to identify which image is on the surface (one is 3,000ft above remember
)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


You cant judge distances that are taken by a film / video camera UNLESS you have information to go on.

You don't not know the size of the craters in the pictures so you have nothing to judge it by.

Same BS as your Apollo 12 thread then



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


You cant judge distances that are taken by a film / video camera UNLESS you have information to go on.

You don't not know the size of the craters in the pictures so you have nothing to judge it by.

Same BS as your Apollo 12 thread then


No, I think the 'detail' of the surface of the moon should appear different when close to the surface and when 3,000ft above


Not rocket science.

Why not just tell me which pictures show which distance and prove me wrong? Get it over with already!



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Anyone ever use Google Moon?

It's part of Google Earth. It's free. We could compare two of these images at different altitudes.

In the other thread, I suggested doing this with the fake moon set in the desert that NASA built for mockups, but the moon itself would be better.

I do see a slight difference in the above pics but not enough detail to prove we went there - or not. I have always felt the moon landing video looked very off. I personally don't believe Man went to the moon. Or that is to say, I don't believe it can be proven that we did go. Everything they say they did or took from the Moon can be faked. All we have is our corrupt governments word - you people still want to believe anything that comes out of this governments month? Astounding.



Don't use that use this

LRO

This post will explain how to use it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


You cant judge distances that are taken by a film / video camera UNLESS you have information to go on.

You don't not know the size of the craters in the pictures so you have nothing to judge it by.

Same BS as your Apollo 12 thread then


No, I think the 'detail' of the surface of the moon should appear different when close to the surface and when 3,000ft above


Not rocket science.

Why not just tell me which pictures show which distance and prove me wrong? Get it over with already!


Are you really trying to look dumb the craters vary in size objects just large enough to be seen at surface level cant be resolved by the camera at 3000 ft its optics.

Here is an example




Top half taken by the Apollo 17 crew as they left the Moon from a few hundred feet using the DAC film camera up bottom half taken from the LRO in orbit 25 miles up obviously a different lens NOW do you think if the Apollo 17 crew had taken a picture from 25 miles up you would see the same detail



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
I want to strengthen my point on this conspiracy. Mods, please do not delete this thread as my main point would be lost amongst the name calling of the other thread.

I have put together 4 images from Apollo 15's approach and landing.


Appreciate that you make a new thread for specific questions rather than make a thread which is generally 'moon landing is fake' which spirals out of control ... Not sure if we needed two for this.

However, Superman is right also.

Required questions:

- Video source
- Time codes of video
- Which camera is it? How is it different to the camera shot you have provided for comparison?
- What workflow is the signal going through. (www.hq.nasa.gov... this can help to a degree)
- Distances are correct this time?

Some of the your answers I think will come in as follows:

- The video signal is put through hell before it gets back to Earth in this instance. A video taken hundreds of feet away of a landscape of only a few hundred lines resolution then beamed from the moon is in no way similar to a photo camera still of a person taken 10 feet away and then developed; especially in the 60s . (This would be consistent with TV cameras used on Ranger 8 in 1965 Link)
- One camera shows many objects for scaling, the other doesn't
- Off the top of my head (haven't looked for a while) one camera is focused in a way that is relevant the other with the distances involved it really doesn't matter, and therefore gives little indication of distance

I think at this stage your argument is mostly with human eyes and bad television signal as opposed to models? If you can find two similar camera set ups taking the same footage from the same distances going through the same work flow then it would make more sense to compare these images.


edit on 5-9-2012 by Pinke because: Really clumsy backwards sentence with two meanings >.<

edit on 5-9-2012 by Pinke because: typos grrrrr



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Anyone ever use Google Moon?



Don't use that use this

LRO

This post will explain how to use it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Cool tool thanks. I don't for one minute believe those images are untouched by starving artists at NASA but it's nice to explore the general Moon with. Anyway to get an offline version? Download all the images and use an offline viewer perhaps? I used to use Isis but havent in a long time.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
I want to strengthen my point on this conspiracy. Mods, please do not delete this thread as my main point would be lost amongst the name calling of the other thread.

I have put together 4 images from Apollo 15's approach and landing.


Appreciate that you make a new thread for specific questions rather than make a thread which is generally 'moon landing is fake' which spirals out of control ... Not sure if we needed two for this.

However, Superman is right also.

Required questions:

- Video source
- Time codes of video
- Which camera is it? How is it different to the camera shot you have provided for comparison?
- What workflow is the signal going through. (www.hq.nasa.gov... this can help to a degree)
- Distances are correct this time?



Distances are correct.

Surely the difference of 3,000ft above the moon's surface and on the actual surface should be easy to spot given it is the same camera and footage for each image?

If you are 3,000ft from the surface, if you can see a rock then it will be quite big. So surely as the module gets closer to the ground we would see the height and dimensions of these rocks more clearly? A building will look small from a height but it's dimensions (you appreciate the 3D aspect as you get closer) will be revealed as you get closer to the surface- so where do all these massive rocks and craters go- to me, the video footage lacks the 3D you would expect as the surface of the moon gets closer.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Anyone ever use Google Moon?

It's part of Google Earth. It's free. We could compare two of these images at different altitudes.

In the other thread, I suggested doing this with the fake moon set in the desert that NASA built for mockups, but the moon itself would be better.

I do see a slight difference in the above pics but not enough detail to prove we went there - or not. I have always felt the moon landing video looked very off. I personally don't believe Man went to the moon. Or that is to say, I don't believe it can be proven that we did go. Everything they say they did or took from the Moon can be faked. All we have is our corrupt governments word - you people still want to believe anything that comes out of this governments month? Astounding.



Don't use that use this

LRO

This post will explain how to use it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


That link kind of supports my argument.

If you zoom in to the pictures, the closer you get, the worse the resolution, as with google earth.

In reality, as you get closer to the surface, the image should come into focus.

On the moon landing videos, this doesn't happen- the resolution stays the same- be it 3,000ft or on the surface- the moon landing videos also lack 3D- massive rocks that are visible from 3,000ft would take great shapes as you got closer to the surface.

This however, does not happen, it all remains flat looking which is indicative of a model- as it doesn't grasp the true dimensions.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Its not like earth you have round craters and rocks and dust the LM doesn't drop vertically it moves so you are not seeing the same area all the time are you!

You are comparing this camera for the descent
DAC


With this for the surface shots
Hasselblad


This is the dimesions of the DAC film

16 MM FILM SIZE (77mm sq)



This image the Hasselblad is the
Hassselblad 70mm



Its the 6cm x 6cm bottom right. Actual area is 54mmx54mm iirc so 2916mm sq

What you are doing with your pictures it like comparing a 0.5mp digital camera with a 30mp digital camera. Hasselblad make some of the best cameras and lenses in the world the quality of the optics is in a different league from the DAC camera.

Also its now on youtube you lose some quality again.

Here is a video in the Rover on the surface taken with the DAC camera not great resolution compared to the Hasselblad still you used.



Hasselblad still



edit on 5-9-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


hummm..

yes.. I see..

ok.. but..

what about the original OP pics .. they LOOK the same reguardless of the distance ?? film is film..but distance will change .. unless camera have a magic trick .. which we all didn't know about ..




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join